From the perspective of the family of Hookes, it may be entirely appropriate that SG apologizes for any distress caused to their feelings. That is a humane action and civilized. However, having said that, people should check out the volumes that have been written about the incident in which DH died. In particular, there is a book published by UNSW that places the incident in the context of alcohol imbued culture of elite Australian cricketers. Further, the bartender was acquitted by a unanimous verdict of the charges of involuntary manslaughter, on account of two versions of the events being established with equal force at the trial- one where the bar staff unjustifiably chased after Hookes and the other in which Hookes provoked the bar staff unconsionably. Now, even in the second scenario, it would be unjustifiable to claim that Hookes' punishment should have been what happened. A man's death in a civil society is always a tragedy. However, when civility breaks down completely, whether on the field, in the house or in a public place like a bar, it leads, more often than not, to a spiral/esclation that leads to violence. So in that sense SG's use of Hookes' death to highlight the problems with the behaviour of Australian cricketers was entirely warranted. The incident and its aftermath has already been played out in the public. Hence, the over the top reaction by Australian cricketers to SG's comments are not just hypocritical, they are downright silly. If anything, Hookes' death has already been a matter of public debate and hopefully that debate throws light on the unacceptability of behaviour by the Australian cricketers, both on field and off it. SG's point that the consequences of such behaviour could be horrendous are both apt and necessary. That Hookes' family may be hurt and an apology to them may be entirely necessary. But to shove the incident under the carpet and assume that it is not relevant to a public debate is silly: death of a person is a matter of public concern. That is why the bartender was charged with a crime and a trial conducted. Behaviour of cricketers is also a matter of public concern and subject to, albeit ineffective, ICC's code of conduct. The fact that boorish behaviour that crosses boundaries and may lead to on-field violence is also a matter of public concern. The entire conspectus of factors in the culture of Australian cricketers that leads to such boorish behaviour, on-field and off the field, that could lead to violence on the cricket field, or influencing the behaviour of youngsters and potentially leading to violence on cricket fields by players much younger, is a matter of public concern. Hookes' death is thus a matter of public concern. It cannot be removed from the public domain by assuming that it continues to hurt Hookes' family.